Karnataka High Court
Shri Manjunath R vs The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation on 2 June, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 26.04.2025
Pronounced on : 02.06.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.3868 OF 2025 (GM - RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI MANJUNATHA R.,
S/O. RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NAGAPURA VILLAGE,
LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 139.
ALSO
RESIDING AT. NO.61, M.G. LAYOUT
MULLUR
SARJAPUR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 035.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAVISHANKAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION
(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING)
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.17
2
JEMSHEDJI TATA ROAD,
MUMBAI - 400 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
1ST FLOOR, BSNL CACT,
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
DOORVANI NAGAR POST,
K.R PURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 016.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563 101.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.
5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (DRO)
KOLAR DISTRICT.
KOLAR - 563 101.
6. THE SUB-REGISTRAR,
MALUR TALUK
MALUR - 563 130.
7. MR. NELSON MANDELA M.,
S/O C. MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDING AT MUTHKU VILLAGE
ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK
3
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2;
SRI SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R-3 TO R-6;
SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KARTHIK V., ADVOCATE FOR R-7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OR DIRECTION PROHIBITING THE R-1 AND 2 FROM GRANTING ANY
OUTLET IN GROUP -i CATEGORY TO THE R-7 AT ANNEXURE-H
DATED 28.06.2023, WHOSE LAND HAS NOT BEEN CONVERTED FOR
NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AS ON THE DATE OF LEASE OR
PRIOR TO LEASE IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM LEASE FOR A PERIOD
OF 19 YEARS 11 MONTHS AND ABOVE AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 26.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to
prohibit respondents 1 and 2 from granting any petroleum outlet
under Group-I Category to respondent No.7 and seeks a
consequential direction of issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents/authorities to cancel
4
dealership allotment in favour of respondent No.7 and in turn
consider the petitioner for allotment of similar petroleum outlet.
2. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.Pramod, learned counsel
appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri Shamanth Naik, learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to
6 and Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.7.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
On 17-10-2023 the 1st respondent/Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation ('the Corporation' for short) calls for applications from
desirous and eligible participants for the purpose of selection for
establishment of retail outlets of the Corporation. All the interested
persons were called for bidding on 08-12-2023. It appears that
respondent No.7 was declared as successful bidder for the location
that forms the subject matter of the present lis. Therefore, his
application dated 17-10-2023 comes to be accepted.
5
4. It is the averment in the petition that upon reviewing the
documents submitted by the 7th respondent it was found that the
land offered for the purpose of establishment of fuel station was an
agricultural land. At the time of submission of the application the 7th
respondent did not possess the land as mandated under the
guidelines for such allotment. The only land the 7th respondent had
was on a long term lease of 20 years on the said agricultural land in
terms of a lease deed dated 25-09-2023. On 24-01-2025, a
communication emerges from the respondent/Corporation that it
has scrutinized the documents or reviewed the documents
submitted by the 7th respondent, which sufficiently demonstrated
that the land that was shown as the place for establishment of fuel
station met the eligibility criteria under Group-I category in terms of
the guidelines and all the allegations that the petitioner had made
were found to be incorrect.
5. The petitioner again submitted representations to the
Tahsildar, District Registrar and Sub-Registrar requesting
clarification on the registration of agricultural land for commercial
use, particularly regarding long term lease agreement for a period
6
of 20 years. The representations remained unanswered. In the
interregnum, the petitioner on coming to know that the 7th
respondent would be allotted the outlet, files the present writ
petition on 07-02-2025. A coordinate Bench of this Court grants an
interim order not to make any allotment of the retail outlet
dealership to the 7th respondent until further orders. The 7th
respondent then prefers an application seeking vacation of the
interim order. During the pendency of the said application, the 7th
respondent files a memo that on 07-03-2025 the land in
Sy.No.136/7 measuring 37 guntas which is submitted for usage of
fuel station has been converted from agriculture to non-
agricultural/commercial use for the purpose of putting up of a petrol
bunk only. The matter, with the consent of parties, is heard at that
stage.
6. The learned senior counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar appearing
for the petitioner would contend that the 7th respondent has
misrepresented about non-agricultural status of the subject land.
The petitioner should have been declared a successful bidder, as
the land mentioned by him, in his application is a legally converted
7
land eligible to be used for commercial purpose. The petitioner's
land was converted long before the last date of filing of the
application in terms of the notification issued by the 1st respondent.
He would, therefore, contend that the guidelines mandate that
production of conversion order in the case of a long-term lease of
any land of 19 years 11 months as the case may be, is mandatory.
The learned senior counsel would take this Court through the RTC
extracts of land submitted by the 7th respondent and submit that
they show only 6½ guntas of land is converted. He would submit
that the petition be allowed and the prayer be granted by directing
the allotment in favour of the petitioner. He would seek to place
reliance upon several judgments rendered by this Court on the
issue to buttress his submission, all of which would bear
consideration qua their relevance.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 7th
respondent, the beneficiary of the allotment, would refute the
submissions to contend that the allotment of a petrol bunk does not
require furnishing of details of land to be made available at the time
of filing of the application. In the brochure, it is clearly indicated
8
that a provisionally selected candidate will be required to offer the
land for evaluation and after the land is found to be, not that of the
allottee, either owning or leased, two months' time from the date of
issuance of the letter of intent is available to the selected candidate
to give an alternate land. He seeks to place reliance on Section 43
of the Transfer of Property Act to contend that the land that is
leased also would come within the 'land' that is necessary to be
given to the Corporation.
8. The learned counsel for the Corporation would toe the lines
of the learned counsel for the 7th respondent in contending that the
clause permits action taken by the Corporation and, therefore, the
application of the 7th respondent has merited consideration at the
hands of the Corporation. The Counsels, in unison, would seek
dismissal of the petition.
9. Sri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 would submit that
they are formal parties and what is available in law is already
communicated to the petitioner against the application filed by him.
He would leave the decision to the Court.
9
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
11. The issue in the lis is with regard to selection of dealers
for establishment of regular and rural retail outlets. All the three
Corporations, IOC, BPCL and HPCL have notified a brochure for
selection of such dealers. Since the issue relates to selection of
dealers, I deem it appropriate to notice certain clauses of the
guidelines so notified for selection of dealers. They read as follows:-
"INTRODUCTION
The salient features of this selection guidelines are:
(i) All applicants meeting the eligibility
criteria will qualify for further selection
process.
(ii) Different selection process for Corporation
Owned Dealer Operated outlets, Dealer Owned
Dealer Operated outlets and Corporation Owned
Dealer Operated outlets under Corpus Fund
Scheme.
(iii) Multiple Dealership Norm (MDN) has been
relaxed for "B"/" DC" site ROs.
(iv) Existing unviable SKO dealers of OMCs will be
eligible to apply.
(v) Corpus Fund Scheme of providing financial
assistance by OMCs can be availed by applicants
10
applying for locations reserved for SC/ST
category, upon appointment as dealer.
.... .... ....
2. RESERVATION
A. The Percentage of reservation for various categories in all the
States except Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland and
Mizoram are as under: -
Category SC/ST OBC Open Total
Combined Category 1 (CC1)
Comprising of :-
(i) Defence Personnel & 2 2 4 8
(ii) Para Military Personnel/Central/State
Govt. and Central/State PSU employees
Combined Category 2 (CC2)
Comprising of :-
(i) Outstanding Sports Persons (OSP) & 0 0 1 1
(ii) Freedom Fighters (FF)
(iii) Primary Agricultural Credit Society (PACS)
Physically Handicapped (PH) 1 1 1 3
SC/ST 19.50 19.50
OBC 24 24
Open 44.50 44.50
Total 22.50 27 50.50 100
.... .... ....
4. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INDIVIDUAL APPLICANTS -
PROPRIETORSHIP / PARTNERSHIP
11
Common Eligibility Criteria for all Categories applying as
individual (as on date of application unless mentioned
otherwise)
(i) Citizenship: Indian Citizen.
(ii) Residential status: Resident of India (as per income
tax rules (If an individual stayed in India for 182 days or
more in the previous Financial year, he is treated as
resident of India as per Income Tax Rules irrespective of his
citizenship. If the stay is less than 182 days he is a non-
resident)).
(iii) PAN: Must possess valid PAN card as on the date of
application.
(iv) Age: Not less than 21 years and not more than 60
years except for Freedom Fighter under CC2 category.
Proof of age should be supported by copy of 10th
Standard Board Certificate / 10th Std. School Leaving
Certificate/ Secondary School Leaving Certificate /
Birth Certificate /Passport/Identity card issued by
Election Commission/PAN card/Aadhar card. However,
the document uploaded by the provisionally selected
candidate in support of proof of age must contain
date, month and year of birth and the certificate relied
upon by the candidate for proof of age must be
specially mentioned in the application.
(v) Educational qualification:
Passed Minimum 10th (examination conducted by a
Board/School).
Certificate issued by Armed Forces as equivalent to 10th
Class pass in accordance with Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions (Dept. of Personnel and
Training) notification No. 15012/8/82-Estt (D) dated
12.02.1986 will also be considered.
For educational qualification from overseas universities /
boards, equivalent certificate issued by competent
12
authority / State Government / Government of India
should be submitted by the applicants.
Minimum Educational qualification is not applicable to
Freedom Fighters applying under CC2 category.
(vi) Land (Applicable to all categories):
The applicants would be classified into three groups
as mentioned below based on the land offered or
land not offered by them in the application form: -
Group - 1: Applicants having suitable piece of land
in the advertised location/area either by way of
ownership/long term lease for a period of minimum
19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.
Group - 2: Applicants having Firm Offer for a
suitable piece of land for purchase or long-term
lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months
or as advertised by the OMC.
Group-3: Applicants who have not offered land in
the application. Only applicable for locations
advertised under SC/ST category.
Applications under Group - 3 would be
processed/advised to offer land (Annexure - D)
only in case no eligible applicant is found or no
applicant get selected under Group - 1 & Group-2.
In case land offered by all the applicants under
Group -1 & Group-2 is found not suitable/not
meeting requirements, then these applicant/s
under Group - 1 & Group - 2 along with applicants
under Group - 3 (who did not offer land along with
application) would be advised by the OMCs to
provide suitable land in the advertised location
/stretch, within a period of 90 days from the date
of issuance of intimation letter to them through
SMS/e-mail. In case the applicant fails to provide
suitable land within the prescribed period, or the
13
land provided is found not meeting the laid down
criteria, the application would be rejected.
The other conditions with respect to offering of land
are as under: -
a) The land should be available with the
applicant as on the date of application and
should have minimum lease of 19 years and
11 months (as advertised by respective oil
company) from the date or after the date of
advertisement but not later than the date of
application. If the offered land is on Long-
term lease and there are multiple owners,
then lease deed should be executed by all co-
owners of the offered plot. Incase lease deed
is not executed by all co-owners; such lease
deed shall be treated as invalid.
.... .... ....
15. FIELD VERIFICATION OF CREDENTIALS (FVC)
Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) will be carried out
for the provisionally selected candidate in respect of
details given by the candidate in the application form. The
objective of the FVC is to verify the correctness of the
details given by the candidate in the application and the
documents submitted thereafter. Failure to present these
documents in original at the time of Field verification can
result in cancellation of selection.
Intimation regarding FVC will be given to the provisionally
selected candidate 10 days in advance by SMS/e-mail. In
case of any request for change of date/extension the next
date will be given by mutual consent. However, the
rescheduled date cannot be more than 10 days from the
originally proposed FVC date.
In case of no response/non-availability of the
provisionally selected applicant on the revised scheduled
date, the candidature shall be cancelled under intimation
14
to the provisionally selected candidate through SMS/e-
mail.
The candidate would be required to produce all original
documents at the time of FVC which were uploaded after
provisional selection for verification.
Original affidavits, copies of which were uploaded would
be required to be submitted by the candidate to the FVC
committee.
16. LETTER OF INTENT
If the information given in the application by the applicant
is found to be correct, and no selection related
complaint/court case is pending for decision, Letter of
Intent will be issued to the provisionally selected
candidate.
The dealer select, after receipt of LOI is required to make
the offered land available in developed condition as per
clause 12 (e) of affidavit (Appendix - XA) or as per
clause 11 (e) of affidavit (Appendix - XB) and fulfill the
other requisite conditions as mentioned in the LOI. The
dealer select under Group - 1 category would be given 2
months and 4 months would be given to Group - 2
category for making land available along with all relevant
land documents in respect of the land offered in the
application for enabling OMCs to prepare layouts
/applications for seeking the statutory approvals /
licenses so that the Retail Outlet can be developed, failing
which OMC can withdraw the LOI and proceed further
with selection process.
LOI will be issued after FVC but not before 30 days from
declaration of results of draw of lots /bidding process/
direct selection.
Affidavit as per Appendix - XA or XB (as applicable) is to
be taken again afresh from the applicant at the time of
issuance of LOI.
15
Withdrawal of LOI
In case LOI holder is unable to provide the land/ develop
facilities within the specified time or due to non-fulfilment
of terms & conditions of LOI, then LOI can be withdrawn.
A show cause notice would be given to the LOI holder and
based on his reply decision to withdraw LOI can be taken
by OMC. In such situations Initial Security Deposit would
be forfeited.
The Initial Security Deposit would also be forfeited if the
LOI holder is unable to submit the total bidding
amount/fixed fee within the stipulated time or the LOI
holder surrenders his/her LOI for any reason or withdraws
for any reason. In such case his/her selection would be
treated as cancelled and LOI withdrawn.
.... .... ....
18. GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL SYSTEM
Any complaint should be accompanied by a fee of
Rs.5000/-, only in the form of demand draft of scheduled
bank in favour of the Oil Company. Any complaint
received without this fee will not be entertained. The
complaint received against the selection including
eligibility will be disposed of as under: -
(i) Complaints received before or after draw of
lots/bidding process along with requisite fee of
Rs.5000/-, will be kept in record and investigation
carried out after successful completion of scrutiny,
land evaluation and Field Verification of Credential
for the selected candidate only in following cases:-
• General complaints with verifiable facts
• Complaints against selected candidate*
* Selected candidate means the candidate who has
completed Field Verification of Credentials successfully
and is eligible for issuance of LOI."
(Emphasis supplied)
16
The afore-quoted clauses of the guidelines are the ones that are
germane. The allotment is divided into three categories. Group-1
would be those who are having suitable piece of land in the
advertised location by way of ownership or long-term lease of 19
years 11 months; Group-2 would be the applicants who are having
firm offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long-term
lease; and Group-3 would be those applicants who have not offered
land in the application. This is applicable only to locations
advertised under SC & ST category. The clause further elaborates
that, in case of a lands offered by the applicant under Groups-1 and
2 are not found suitable, then the applicants under those groups
would be advised to provide suitable land in the advertised location
within 90 days from the date of issuance of intimation letters to
them with regard to the allotment.
12. What would unmistakably emerge from the afore-quoted
clauses is that a person who is applying should have a land of his
own or should have a long-term lease of property of minimum 19
years 11 months or should be a proper/concrete offer for such
lease. It also provides 90 days' time for issuance of letter of intent
17
to alter the land in case the land provided not being in terms of the
guidelines. The letter of intent is dealt with under clause 16. The
letter of intent further makes it clear that a dealer selected under
Group-1 category would be given two months and Group-2 would
be given four months for making the land available along with all
relevant documents. The submission of the learned counsel for the
7th respondent is basing his claim only on clause 16 which deals
with letter of intent. The issue now would be, whether the land that
the 7th respondent has offered for establishment of a fuel outlet is a
converted land or otherwise, as it is trite that dealership of a fuel
outlet, cannot be an agricultural activity.
13. The allegation of the petitioner is that the land that
belonged to the 7th respondent or offered at the time of
advertisement is not a converted land. This appears to be correct
for the reason that the conversion order comes about on
07-03-2025. The order of conversion reads as follows:
"ಕ
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂ ಾಯ ಅ ಯಮ 1964 ರ ಕಲಂ 95(2), 95(4) ಮತು 95(7) ರ
ಷರತುಗಳ ಾಗೂ ಈ ೆಳ ಾ ದ ಷರತು!ೊಳಪ# , ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂ ಾಯ ($ದು%
$ದು%ಪ#)
#
ಯಮಗಳ 1994 ರ ಯಮ 107(1) ರಂ&ೆ ಅ' ಾರ(ಾದ )*ೕ ಎ- ಅಮರ ಾ(ಾಯಣ/ಾ01 23
/ಾದಪ4
/ಾದಪ4,
ಪ4 ರವರ ಅ' ಯನು7 ಪ8ಗ ಲಕೂ9ರು ೋಬ; <ಕ9ಇಗ>ಲೂರು !ಾ*ಮದ 136/*/7 ರ?@
18
0.37.0.00 ರ?@ನ ಒಟುB 0.37.0.00 ಎಕ(ೆ ಗುಂCೆ D ೕಣ ದ ವEವ/ಾಯದ ಜ1ೕನನು7 ವEವ/ಾGೕತರ
commercial - Petrol bunk ಉ ೆ%ೕಶ ಾ9J ಬಳಸಲು ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಷರತುಗ;!ೆ ಒಳಪಟುB
ಭೂ ಪ8ವತ ಾ ಆ ೇಶವನು7 ೊರ#ಸNಾJ ೆ.
1. ಈ ಭೂ1ಯು Oಾವ ಉ ೆ%ೕಶ ಾ9J ಪ8ವತ ೆOಾJ ೆPೕ ಆ ಉ ೆ%ೕಶ ೆ9 ಉಪPೕJ ೊಳQಲು
ಸRಮ Sಾ* ಾ8Tಂದ, ಅಂದ(ೆ (Kolar /ಅUವೃW% ಮಂಡ; / ಎಂ /Xಎಂ /Yಾ?ನE ಯಂತ*ಣ
ಮಂಡ;/!ಾ*ಮ ಪಂZಾT$ಗ;ಂದ ಮಂಜೂ(ಾ$ಯನು7 ಪ[ೆಯದ ೊರತು ಈ ಆ ೇಶವ\
ಅನುಭವ ಾರ !ೆ Oಾವ\ ೇ ಹಕ9ನು7 ೕಡುವ\Wಲ@.
2.ಈ ಭೂಪ8ವ$ ತ ಜ1ೕನನು7 commercial | Petrol bunk ಉ ೆ%ೕಶ ಾ9J Yಾತ*
ಉಪPೕJ ೊಳQತಕ9ದು%, ಈ ಜ1ೕನನು7 ಪ^_ಾ ನುಮ$ ಇಲ@ ೆ `ೇ(ೆ ಉ ೆ%ೕಶ ಾ9J
ಉಪPೕJಸ`ಾರದು.
3. ಈ ಜ1ೕ ನ?@ ಉ ೆ%ೕ) ರುವ ಬ[ಾವaೆ ನbೆ ಾಗೂ ಪರ_ಾನJ ಇ&ಾEWಗಳನು7 ( Kolar
/Sಾ* ಾರ /ನಗರSಾ? ೆ/ಇ&ಾEW) ರವ8ಂದ ಅನುcೕW ೊಂಡು, ಆ ನಂತರ ಅನುcೕದ ೆ!ೊಂಡ
ನbೆ!ೆ ಅನುಗುಣ_ಾJ ಕಟBಡವನು7 ಕಟುBವ\ದು. ಸದ8 ಜ1ೕ ನ?@ Nೇಔe Sಾ@ !ೆ ಅನುcೕದ ೆ
ಪ[ೆಯ ೆ ಪರ`ಾ(ೆ Yಾಡಕೂಡದು
4. ಇತ(ೆ ಅವಶE_ಾದ ರ/ೆ fಾಗ, ರ/ೆ Yಾ' 3, gಾ? fಾಗ ಇ&ಾEWಗಳನು7 (Kolar/Sಾ* ಾರ /
ನಗರSಾ? ೆ/ಇ&ಾEW ) ರವ8ಂದ ಅನುcೕW ದ ಬ[ಾವaೆ ನbೆ ಪ* ಾರ ಾಗೂ W ಷBಪ# ದ
ಯಮಗಳ 8ೕತE ಸದ8 ಉ ೆ%ೕಶ ಾ9J ಾT%8ಸತಕ9ದು%.
5. /ಾವ ಜ ಕ hತದೃiBTಂದ ಸದ8 ಜ1ೕ ನ?@ _ೇಶನ ಾರ8!ೆ ಾಗ8ೕಕ /ೌಲಭEಗkಾದ
DದುEಚmn, ೕರು ಸರಬ(ಾಜು ಒಳಚರಂ# ವEವ/ೆo, ಇ&ಾEWಗಳನು7 ಆ(ೋಗE ೈಮ °åÃಕರಣ ಾಗೂ
ಭದ*&ೆಗಳ ಉ ೆ%ೕಶWಂದ ಎNಾ@ /ೌಲಭEಗಳನು7 ಾನೂನು 8ೕತE ಒದJ ೊಡುವ\ದು ಅ' ಾರರ
ಜ_ಾ`ಾ%8OಾJರುತ ೆ.
6. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಆ ೇಶ ಸಂ:qಡಬೂ@r.# 7556-665-ಅs ಮತು 2-6-54-5 ಮತು ೇಂದ* ಸ ಾ ರದ
/ಾ8!ೆ ಇNಾgೆಯ ಪತ* ನಂ q1:7(11)67, W ಾಂಕ:1-1-1966 ರಂ&ೆ ಈ ಜ1ೕ ನ?@ ಕಟBಲು
ಉ ೆ%ೕ) ರುವ ಕಟBಡವ\ (ಾitೕಯ ಾಗೂ (ಾuಯ ೆ ಾ%8!ೆ ಸಂಬಂ ದಂ&ೆ ರ/ೆಯ
ಮಧEwಾಗWಂದ 40 1ೕಟs ಗಳ ಅಂತರವನು7 ಮತು 'Nಾ@ ೆ ಾ%8!ೆ ಸಂಬಂ ದಂ&ೆ ರ/ೆಯ
ಮಧEwಾಗWಂದ 25 1ೕಟs ಗಳ ಅಂತರವನು7 ಾT%8ಸ`ೇಕು ಾಗೂ ಈ gಾ? ಪ* ೇಶದ?@
Oಾವ\ ೇ ಕಟBಡವನು7 ಕಟB`ಾರದು.
19
7. ಈ ಭೂ ಪ8ವತ ಾ ಜ1ೕ ನ?@ /ಾoqಸNಾಗುವ ೈ!ಾ8 ಾ ಘಟಕಗಳ ೊ!ೆ ಅ ಲ ಇತ(ೆ
ಕಲyಶಗಳನು7 ಪ8aಾಮ ಾ8OಾJ ತ[ೆಗXB /ಾವ ಜ ಕರ ಆ(ೋಗE ೆ9 Oಾವ\ ೇ 8ೕ$ಯ
ಾ Oಾಗದಂ&ೆ ಾಗು ಪ8ಸರ Yಾ?ನE_ಾಗದಂ&ೆ ೋ# ೊಳQತಕ9ದು%. ೈ!ಾ8 ಾ ಉ ೆ%ೕಶ ಾ9J
ಭೂ ಪ8ವ$ ತ ಜ1ೕ ನ?@ /ಾoqಸುವ ೈ!ಾ8 ಾ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ Yಾ?ನE ಯಂತ*ಣ
ಮಂಡ;/ಪ8ಸರ ಇNಾgೆಗಳ ಅನುಮ$ ೊಂWರತಕ9ದು%.
8. zೕಲ9ಂಡ Oಾವ\ ೇ ಷರತುಗಳನು7 ಉಲ@ಂ{ ದ?@ ಈ ಭೂ ಪ8ವತ ೆ ಆ ೇಶ Oಾವ\ ೇ ಸೂಚ ೆ
ೕಡ ೆ ರದು%!ೊ;ಸNಾಗುವ\ದು ಮತು ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂಕಂ ಾಯ ಾG% 1964 ರ ಕಲಂ 96 ರಂ&ೆ ದಂಡ
ಶುಲ9ವನು7 D ಸಲು ಮುಂWನ ಕ*ಮ &ೆ!ೆದು ೊಳQNಾಗುವ\ದು. ಅಲ@ ೇ ಈ ಜ1ೕ ನ?@ ಅನ ಕೃತ_ಾJ
ಕXBದ ಕಟBಡಗಳನು7 Oಾವ\ ೇ ಪ8 ಾರ ೕಡ ೇ &ೆರವ\!ೊ;ಸಲು ಕ*ಮ &ೆ!ೆದು ೊಳQNಾಗುವ\ದು.
ಾಗೂ ಅದ ೆ9 ತಗಲುವ _ೆಚ|ವನು7 ಭೂಕಂ ಾಯ `ಾn ಎಂದು gಾ&ೆ ಾರ8ಂದ ವಸೂ?
YಾಡNಾಗುವ\ದು.
ೆಚು|ವ8 ಷರತುಗಳ
1. ಈ ಭೂ ಪ8ವತ ೆ ಆ ೇಶವ\ ಮುಂWನ ಆ ೇಶದವ(ೆಗೂ }ಾಶ0ತ_ಾJ YಾನE_ಾJರುತ ೆ, ಭೂ
ಪ8ವತ ೆಯ ಉ ೆ%ೕಶ ಬದNಾವaೆOಾಗ`ೇ ಾದ(ೆ /ೆR3 97 ರ ಪ* ಾರ ೊಸ ಆ ೇಶ ಪ[ೆಯತಕ9ದು%.
2. ಷರತು (೨) ರ?@ $; ರುವಂ&ೆ ಭೂ ಪ8ವ$ ತ ಜ1ೕನನು7 commercial - Petrol bunk
ಉ ೆ%ೕಶ ಾ9J Yಾತ* ಉಪPೕJ ೊಳQತಕ9ದು%. `ೇ(ೆ ಉ ೆ%ೕಶ ಾ9J ಉಪPೕJಸ`ೇ ಾದ(ೆ /ೆR3
97 ರ ಪ* ಾರ ಮರು ಅನುಮ$ಯನು7 ಪ[ೆಯತಕ9ದು%. ಸದ8 ಭೂ ಪ8ವ$ ತ ಜ1ೕನನು7 Oಾವ
ಉ ೆ%ೕಶಗ;!ೆ ಪ8ವತ ೆOಾJ ೆPೕ ಆ ಉ ೆ%ೕಶಗ;!ೆ Pೕಜ ಾ Sಾ* ಾರ / ಅUವೃW• ಮಂಡ; /
ಎಂ / Xಎಂ /Yಾ?ನE ಯಂತ*ಣ ಮಂಡ; / !ಾ*ಮ ಪಂZಾT$ಗ;ಂದ ಅಗತE
ಮಂಜೂ(ಾ$ಯನು7 ಪ[ೆಯತಕ9ದು%.
3. ಸದ8 ಭೂಪ8ವತ ೆ ಆ ೇಶವನು7 ಅ' ಾರರು ೕ#ರುವ ಅ€ಡDe (ಪ*Yಾಣಪತ*) ಆ•ಾರದ?@
ೕಡNಾJದು% ಅ€ಡDe ಪ*Yಾಣಪತ*ದ?@ ೕ#ರುವ Yಾh$ಯು ಒಂದು _ೇkೆ ತSಾ4Jದ%?@ ಈ
ಆ ೇಶವ\ ಯYಾನು/ಾರ ರದ%$ Yಾಡುವ ಷರ$!ೆ ಒಳಪಡುತ ೆ.
4. ನಗರ Pೕಜ ಾ Sಾ* ಾರ/!ಾ*ಮ ಪಂZಾT$/ಅUವೃW• Sಾ* ಾರ/ಸRಮ Sಾ* ಾರವ\ Nೇ ಔe
Sಾ@3 !ೆ ಅನುcೕದ ೆ ೕಡುವವ(ೆ!ೆ Yಾತ*_ೇ ಕಂ ಾಯ ಇNಾgೆಯ ಭೂ1 ತಂ&ಾ*ಂಶದ?@
ವ h . ಾNೋ<ತ!ೊ;ಸು$ರುವ ಪಹ ಯ?@ರುವ ಭೂ ಪ8ವತ ೆOಾJರುವ bೇತ*ದ ಪ^ಣ
D ೕಣ ವನು7 Dಭಜ ೆ Yಾಡ ೇ ಒಂ ೇ ಘಟಕವ ಾ7J Yಾ(ಾಟ Yಾಡಬಹು ಾJ ೆ. ನಗರ Pೕಜ ಾ
Sಾ* ಾರ ಅಥ_ಾ !ಾ*ಮ ಪಂZಾT$ ಅಥ_ಾ ಸಂಬಂ ದ ಸRಮ Sಾ* ಾರವ\ Nೇ ಔe Sಾ@3 !ೆ
ಅನುcೕದ ೆ ೕ#ದ ನಂತರ ಭೂ ಪ8ವತ ೆOಾJರುವ bೇತ*ದ?@ /ಾವ ಜ ಕ ಉ ೆ%ೕಶ ೆ9
20
1ೕಸ?8 ದ D ೕಣ ವನು7 2ಟುB ಉ;ದ Dಭ'ತ bೇತ*ವನು7 ಆOಾ bೇತ* ೆ9 ೕ#ರುವ ಅ ಯ
ಗುರು$ನ ಸಂgೆE ( Property id) zೕ(ೆ!ೆ Yಾ(ಾಟ Yಾಡಬಹು ಾJರುತ ೆ.
ƒೆಡೂE„ Dವರ
ೋNಾರ 'Nೆ@ Yಾಲೂರು &ಾಲೂ@ಕು, ಲಕೂ9ರು ೋಬ;, <ಕ9 ಇಗ>ಲೂರು !ಾ*ಮದ 136/*/7,
ಸ.ನಂ. ರ?@ನ ಒಟುB ಎಕ(ೆ 0.37.0.00 ಗುಂCೆ D ೕಣ ೆ9 ಭೂಪ8ವ$ ತ ಜ1ೕ !ೆ ಚಕು9ಬಂW:
ZÀPÀÄ̧A¢
¸À.£ÀA. «¹ÛÃtð
¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ zÀQëtPÉÌ
136*7 0.37.0.00 Masthi Malur N.Krishnappa Sy.No.136/4 Savitha
Road Ravishankar
¸À»/-
DC Name: f¯Áè¢üPÁj
Dr.M.R.Ravi ೋNಾರ 'Nೆ@"
The conversion order is on 07-03-2025. The conversion application
is filed on 29-01-2025. The conversion is for a specific purpose - for
establishment of a petrol bunk.
14. The issue would be, whether an agricultural land could
have been projected to be the land for establishment of a
petroleum outlet or a fuel station at the time of submission of the
application. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve
deep into the matter, as the Division Bench of this Court in the case
21
of VINOD N v. M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED1, on
identical circumstance, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
3. The appellant was declared as a successful candidate in
the draw held for selection and on 23.06.2019 a letter was
issued directing the appellant to remit a sum of Rs.50,000/- and
to complete the formalities. Vide communication dated
21.10.2019, he was informed that the land offered by him does
not fall under Group - 1 as per Market Discipline Guidelines and
he has been shifted to Group - 3.
4. A petition was preferred before this Court stating that a
lease deed was very much submitted and the M/s. Indian Oil
Corporation could not have treated it as mortgage deed and no
loan was advanced to the appellant. The learned Single Judge
while deciding the matter has observed that the deed is a
transfer deed and not a mortgage deed. This Court has carefully
gone through the aforesaid document and the document does
not reveal at all that any loan was advanced at any point of time
to the appellant. Otherwise also, as per the Market Discipline
Guidelines, in case a land offered by an applicant under Group -
1 is not found suitable, three months' time has to be given to
him to provide suitable alternative land in the advertised
location/stretch.
5. At this juncture, learned counsel Sri. Dhananjay V
Joshi who is the counsel in the connected matter, has argued
before this Court that the notice to provide alternative land is
only given in case there is no person available under Groups - 1
and 2 has offered a suitable land.
6. The relevant extract of the brochure relating to
selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets under the
heading "land" is reproduced as under:
"The applicants would be classified into three
groups as mentioned below based on the land offered or
land not offered by them in the application form:-
1
W.A.No.216 of 2020 disposed on 20-07-2021
22
Group 1 : Applicants having suitable piece of land
in the advertised location / area either by way of
ownership / long term lease for a period of minimum 19
years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.
Group 2 : Applicants having Firm Offer for a
suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease for a
period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised
by the OMC.
Group 3 : Applicants who have not offered land in
the application.
Applications under Group 3 would be processed /advised
to offer land only in case no eligible applicant is found or
no applicant get selected under Group 1 & 2.
In case land offered by all the applicants under Group 1 &
Group 2 is found not suitable / no meeting requirements,
then these applicant/s under Group 1 & Group 2 along
with applicants under Group 3 (who did not offer land
along with application) would be advised by the OMCs to
provide suitable land in the advertised location / stretch,
within a period of 3 months from the date of issuance of
intimation letter to them through SMS/e-mail. In case the
applicant fails to provide suitable land within the
prescribed period or the land provided is found not
meeting the laid down criteria, the application would be
rejected."
7. The learned counsel for M/s. Indian Oil Corporation has
not been able to point out whether there are other persons
available who have offered suitable land under Groups - 1 and
2.
8. Resultantly, in case there is no other person
available in Group - 1 or Group - 2 who has been found
suitable keeping in view the land requirements, M/s.
Indian Oil Corporation shall give three months' notice to
all the applicants for offering a suitable land and in case
the land offered by some other applicants under Groups -
1 and 2 is held to be suitable, then the requirement of
three months' notice to the present appellant does not
arise.
23
9. So far as the lease / mortgage deed is concerned,
undisputedly, the land in question is an agricultural land
and as per the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961, keeping in view Section 5, no tenancy can be
created by way of lease in respect of agricultural land.
Hence, the so called lease / mortgage deed as it is
contrary to the statutory provisions cannot be looked into
for the purpose of "land" under the selection criteria.
Otherwise also, the title of the deed is "mortgage deed"
as reflected from the document which is on record as per
Annexure-F."
(Emphasis supplied)
The case before the Division Bench was also of a successful bidder
or successful candidate offering an agricultural land for the purpose
of establishment of a fuel station. This was initially challenged
before the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.1213 of 2020.
On 21-01-2020 the writ petition had been dismissed by the
following order:
"Petitioner's grievance is by communication dated 21st
October 2019, the Indian Oil Corporation(IOC) has conveyed
that the land document submitted by the petitioner does not fall
under Group-1 and hence, petitioner's application would be
considered under Group-3.
2. Shri. Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, learned Advocate for
petitioner submitted that the communication is bad in law
because, petitioner has furnished lease agreement dated 14th
December 2018 as per Annexure-F.
24
3. Shri. Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned Advocate for
Corporation submitted that though petitioner claims to have
submitted 'Lease Agreement', the document submitted by him is
in fact a 'Mortgage Deed'. Therefore, petitioner's case cannot be
considered under Group-1.
4. Perusal of Annexure-F shows that it is a mortgage
deed. Hence, no exception can be taken to the decision taken by
IOC to consider petitioner's case in Group-3 category.
5. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly,
dismissed."
The learned single Judge had observed that no exception can be
taken to the decision taken by the IOC therein to consider the case
of the petitioner in Group-3, as he was not eligible under Group-1.
This is affirmed by the Division Bench.
15. A little later to the aforesaid order, a learned single Judge
of this Court in the case of N.MANJUNATH REDDY v. THE HEAD
OF DIVISIONAL OFFICE AND ANOTHER2, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner has submitted a valid Lease Agreement dated
14.12.2018. However, the Indian Oil Corporation has sent the
instant communication without proper application of mind.
4. Learned advocate for respondent No.1-Corporation has
filed a memo along with a copy of Record of Right (pahani) in
2
Writ PetitionNo.1091 of 2020 disposed of on 22-01-2020
25
respect of Sy.No.9/1, Royalmandinne Village, Tayaluru Hobli,
Mulubagalu Taluk, Kolar District, and also a copy of Lease
Agreement in respect of property bearing No.9/1 of the same
village. He submitted that initially petitioner had offered an
agricultural land and submitted a Record of Right in respect
Sy.No.9/1. Subsequently, Lease Agreement in respect of
property No.9/1 has been submitted. Therefore, Indian Oil
Corporation has rightly conveyed that the land in question
cannot be considered under Group 1.
5. In reply, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted
that as per Clause ix contained in the brochure (Annexure-C),
the Indian Oil Corporation is required to give 21 days time to
the petitioner, which is not complied with.
6. Admitted position is that petitioner initially
offered Sy.No.9/1 as per Record of Right. Lease
Agreement dated 14.12.2018 produced by both petitioner
and respondent is in respect of property bearing No.9/1.
Learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that
the District Registrar of Stamps has conveyed that both
properties are same. The District Registrar is not the
competent Authority to decide whether two properties
are same. In the instant case, Lease Agreement is in
respect of property bearing No.9/1 and the Record of
Right is in respect of Sy.No.9/1. Petitioner has given two
different documents, the first one as agriculture property
and second one with 'property number' without
conversion of land for non-agriculture purpose.
7. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the
communication dated 08.01.2020 issued by the Indian Oil
Corporation. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly
dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of the issue being answered by the Division Bench as
observed, this Court need not delve deep into the issue. The
admitted facts in the case at hand are that, as on the date when
26
the application of the 7th respondent was taken up for
consideration, the land that he had offered was still an agricultural
land, which was yet to get converted for non-agricultural purposes,
even an application for conversion had not been preferred by the 7th
respondent. It is preferred only on 29-01-2025, long after his
selection and it is converted during the pendency of the subject
petition, that too only for petrol bunk purpose.
16. It is trite law that an application should meet all the
necessities of the brochure or the advertisement on the last date
depicted for the purpose of submission of application. As observed
hereinabove, the admitted fact is that the 7th respondent did not
have a valid land to be projected for the purpose of establishment
of a fuel station. It is ununderstandable as to how respondent No.7
has been selected by the Corporation. The selection, therefore,
suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and runs counter to
the judgment rendered by the Division Bench. In that light, the
petition deserves to succeed, albeit in part, as there can be no
direction by grant of an allotment in favour of the petitioner, while
27
observing that the allotment in favour of 7th respondent was
erroneous and contrary to law.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The allotment made in favour of the 7th respondent
stands quashed.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the 1st
respondent/Corporation to consider the next eligible
candidate for the purpose of establishment of petrol
pump, if the said candidate would meet all the
necessities under the guidelines, bearing in mind the
observations made in the course of the order.
Ordered accordingly.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2025 stands disposed.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
